PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17206926

Establishing improved normal values for nerve conduction studies.

Abstract

Nerve conduction studies are commonly performed to diagnose injuries of the peripheral nerves. In the past, normal ranges have been derived on relatively small samples of normal subjects. These ranges were often suboptimal for clinical use. Therefore, this series of articles was created to establish an improved database of normative values. It highlights the key contributions of a number of authors. In this foreword, the contributions of the various authors to the special issue on the development of an improved database for nerve conduction studies are described. The authors are introduced, including their training, gifts, and which articles they were involved in writing. In addition, there is a brief review of each of the articles in this special supplement. The fundamentals of ulnar motor nerve conduction to the first dorsal interosseous muscle are described, as is the contribution of Nate Prahlow, MD. In addition, the median motor nerve conduction to the pronator teres muscle and flexor carpi radialis muscle is highlighted including the contributions of Brian Foley, MD. The radial sensory nerve and dorsal ulnar cutaneous sensory nerve studies are described, as well as the contributions of Van Evanoff, Jr., MD, in creating this research. Median motor conduction to the lumbrical muscles and ulnar motor conduction to the palmar interosseous muscles are described, again highlighting the contributions of Dr. Foley. In addition, medial and lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve studies are described, along with the contributions of Dr. Nathan Prahlow. Median and ulnar sensory conduction studies recording from the fourth digit, as well as median and radial sensory conduction to the first digit, are described, as are the contributions of James Lohman, MD, and Andrew Berkson, DO. The side-to-side differences in median and ulnar sensory conduction studies and the importance of performing such studies are described, as are the contributions in this research of Dr. Nathan Prahlow and Elizabeth Grossart, MD. Lastly, median and ulnar sensory amplitude differences are described, including the contributions of Dr. Zaliha Omar, Dr. Andrew Berkson, and Doug Mottley, MD.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ralph M Buschbacher. 2006. Establishing improved normal values for nerve conduction studies.. https://doi.org/10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v16.i5.10

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗